I find this quite disturbing, and cannot understand why the BIS would give such a soapbox to this pretender, who seems to have gone to the David Percy School of Photographic Ignorance.

Shallow 'debates' such as this are more a test of the person's debating skill than any form of scientific appraisal and by giving him this opportunity BIS are, in my opinion, lowering themselves into the gutter. And I think the misguided person who has agreed to 'debate' him - and thereby lend him credibility - is also doing the Apollo program a great disservice. No matter what the outcome, the mere fact that this 'debate' took place with the sanction of the BIS is going to be usable by the denier's camp.

I suppose it is down to how it is controlled. The host or person in charge or whatever needs to be un biased and able to wield the naughty stick that both respect. No barracking and if evidence is presented, that is pictures etc, then the topic is not side tracked until it is explored. This raises issues with time but the formalities need to be adhered to.

Does that make sense?

Edit (last sentence is cos I am not sure I have put my bit across in the right way)

The text in the link indicates it will be a presentation of "anomalies" following by a rebuttal. Under those controlled circumstances it may not be a disaster. Still, it is not a good idea to give HBs a prestigious podium to talk from.

Logged

The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Tedward - I get what you are saying, but I think the damage is already done.

Thing is, (particularly if you are a respected institution) you don't invite someone to a debate unless you think they have something worthwhile to say - so BIS are implicitly saying that Allen is qualified, and that there are anomalies in Apollo photographs.

The text in the link indicates it will be a presentation of "anomalies" following by a rebuttal. Under those controlled circumstances it may not be a disaster. Still, it is not a good idea to give HBs a prestigious podium to talk from.

Everything else said about a prestigious science institute giving a conspiracy loon undeserved publicity notwithstanding, as long as Allen's presentation was given to the man who will attempt to rebut it long before the debate and Allen is forbidden to discuss material not in his presentation then it shouldn't be a complete disaster. If Allen's opponent doesn't know what Allen will be presenting then Allen will wipe up the floor with him. I can only assume the man at the BIS who approved this is completely ignorant of the low-ball tactics used by pseudoscientists.

I got a very nice response from the BIS. They know what they are doing and are well aware of the tactics they will be facing.

So how will they deal with him? I do think that just having a good moderator to stop ad-hominem attacks and Gish-galloping would go a very long way. Once you start a topic, you have to finish it; you don't get to just abandon it in midstream and jump to another one and another one.

Unfortunately this tends to go against the perception that modern audiences have 10-second attention spans. Even my favorite TV show, Mythbusters, constantly interleaves several stories at once for fear of boring their audience. I'd like to have an automatic editing program that reorders the show into one subject at a time.

I got a very nice response from the BIS. They know what they are doing and are well aware of the tactics they will be facing.

Hmm. I certainly hope so, and I'll be delighted to say I was wrong and congratulate them on how well it went, after the event...

Perhaps you can ask them who will be their next similarly qualified and credible guest - Nancy Lieder invited to speak on 'Dangers to Earth from NEOs', perhaps? Tell them to ask her about her dog..

I apologise for the sarcasm - which may be proven to be misdirected towards BIS, but my original point still stands - if an organisation like them invites people like these to have a debate, you are essentially presenting them with a credibility badge..

Yes, but the only folks who will see that are us (or at least hopefully we will, at some point..).

The deniers will likely present their own version of who won, concentrating on the fact that Marcus Allen was invited to the BIS to present a case and therefore must have had one.. and it may have the effect of generating a few new Patrick1000/fattydashes.. Who knows for sure.

An Apology... for the Mistaken Announcement of the 'Apollo Moon Landing - Fact or Fiction?' Lecture....The original intention had been to discuss the photographic evidence from the Apollo Moon Landings and rebut any hoax theories that are based on suggested anomalies in these photographs. Marcus Allen was invited to explain these anomalies, but the summary he supplied for the announcement was not what was agreed and wrongly gave the impression that he would, at the invitation of the BIS, be presenting the whole hoax theory! This was certainly not the case and the BIS has already received an apology from Marcus Allen for the upset he has caused by, in haste, submitting the wrong brief.The BIS does not and has never given credence to any suggestions that the Apollo Programme did not land men on the Moon or was in any sense a hoax. In order to ensure that such misleading announcements will never be made again, the BIS is reviewing its procedures and will be introducing an approval system which will require at least 3 Council Members to clear every event announcement before it goes to print or out on the website.The BIS is now considering whether to restructure the Apollo Moon Landing lecture for the evening of 4 April or find a new subject, and speaker, altogether.

So, they don't give any credence to it.. yet it's worth an event and they still decided to go ahead with the revised version... Even weirder, they seem to blame Marcus Allen for trying to widen the scope, when it was the BIS who obviously were naming and organising the event. Good Grief.

I suspect that they have hired a new PR person who was told to "make our programs more modern and appealing to a young audience". This person thought, "hmm, half the programs on 'science' tv now are paranormal/conspiracy shows. Hey, let's do the Moon Hoax! That'll bring in a bunch of people who are interested in more than this boring sciency stuff that I can't make sound hip no matter how hard I try."

Now, they're trying to backpedal. I suppose they can't openly say, "We asked Allen here so we could point and laugh."